Do Animals Have Intrinsic Value?
“In the past, we have tried to make a distinction between animals which we acknowledge have some
value, and others which, having none, can be liquidated when we wish. This standard must be abandoned. Everything that lives
has value simply as a living thing, as one of the manifestations of the mystery that is life.”
Albert Schweitzer
Intrinsic value is something good or valuable in itself. This is to be contrasted with instrumental value. Instrumental
value relates to its practical use. Something with intrinsic value is valuable regardless of its practicality. Is there intrinsic
value in plant and animal life? From a traditional Western perspective, the answer is “no.” The only real value
of animals and plants is found in their usefulness to mankind. If by destroying plants and animals human will suffer, then
their destruction is wrong. If no harm results to a person then the destruction of that plant or animal can be justified based
on its usefulness to man. Darwinists often blame the belief in the Genesis account of creation for this disregard for animal
life. Notice this quote from Princeton University Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer:
This traditional Judeo-Christian view of
the world is based on a creation myth that was decisively refuted more than a century ago. At least since Darwin,
we have known that the forests and animals were not placed on Earth for us to use. They have evolved alongside us. The assumptions
that derive from that myth, however, are still with us. If we can succeed in clearing them away, the consequences for our
way of living will be as far reaching as any changes in human history have ever been.
While Christians may
sharply disagree with Singer’s assertion that Genesis is only a myth, his quote should teach us something about his
perception of the theistic worldview. People like Singer accurately observe many Christians’ general disregard and disrespect
for nature. To the extent that Christians go on communicating to the world these apparent messages, we can expect more of
the same—rejection of Christ because of a twisted “worldview” that claims to be biblical, yet is thoroughly
lacking in several areas. This article is only focusing on one aspect of ecology.
I also disagree with
Singer regarding his opinion that plants and animals are not for human use. I believe that they can serve this high purpose
when thankfully received as God’s provision and reverently respected as God’s production. Animals and plants are
useful. To deny this is irrational. We cannot survive without them. It is of course possible that Singer is just denying
that they were placed by God for our use. Why should it matter to Singer whether God placed them here or not? The
fact remains that they are useful. On the other hand, it should matter to Christians that God placed them for our use. It
should inspire us to be good stewards with a thankful heart. Sadly, Singer is correct in his observations but wrong in his
understanding of the implications of Genesis.
Though many animals eat
plants, plants need animals for their survival. The mutual exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide between the plant and animal
kingdoms illustrate this balance. Elephants kill some plants as they clumsily journey through jungles. In doing so, they give
other species of plants the opportunities to grow and thrive. Carnivorous animals need other animals for sustenance. If naturalistic
evolution is true, then humans are highly evolved animals that would have just as much right to be carnivorous as
any other animal. The proper theistic view should also allow for animal consumption, but with thankfulness and reverence,
not as one trying to survive.
Humans can disagree about
whether it is best to have a diet that includes animal meat. One thing humans should agree on is the way in which these animals
are treated before and as they are killed. Killing animals just for the sake of killing them is either pure evil or madness.
Killing an animal to protect or provide for a human is sensible, and at times, responsible. American Indians both respected
nature as well as used it to their own benefit. They ate buffalo meat, but also used almost every other part of the animal.
They killed only what they needed and the population of buffalo remained strong. The joyful scene in Dances with Wolves in which the Indians were chasing a herd of migrating buffalo so they could have meat and clothing
for the winter came to an emotional crunch when the indians discovered that a wagon of white men with rifles had arrived
first. The white men had used their rifles to kill hundreds of buffalo for their valuable furs. The naked buffalo were left
to rot in the open field, their stench rising up to the heavens. This scene depicted the shameful historical account of the
way greedy white man was willing to destroy and plummage the earth for material gain, without respect for God, the planet,
or other people.
I think of the kind of
people that are unusually cruel to animals as the same kind of people who beat their wives and children—self-centered,
calloused, and disrespectful to other beings that have intrinsic value.
If animals are going
to be killed, there needs to be a purpose high enough to justify the removal of the life that has intrinsic value.
Since human life is of greater value, then anytime an animal is used to meet a basic human need, then the killing is justified.
Fishing and hunting can be justified on the basis that it provides for basic needs. Meeting
human needs is a noble purpose of an animal. The way in which these animals are raised or killed needs to be with reverence
and respect for God’s creation. Animal cruelty is wrong for a number of reasons.
1. The most important reason that cruelty to animals
is wrong relates to their intrinsic value. God looked at his creation and repeatedly stated that it was good. If something
is good in God's eyes, it must have intrinsic value. Even if He had not stated it as clearly as Scripture records, common
sense should attribute value to anything that has God’s fingerprints on it. The promises throughout Scripture to redeem
and restore creation reflect God’s desire to undo the tarnishing effects of sin.
2. Another reason that animal cruelty is wrong
is because animals, at least the higher vertebrates, can feel pain. One scientist writes,
Every particle of factual evidence supports
the contention that the higher mammalian vertebrates experience pain sensations at least as acute as our own. To say that
they feel less because they are lower animals is an absurdity; it can easily be shown that many of their senses are far more
acute that ours--visual acuity in certain birds, hearing in most wild animals, and touch in others; these animals depend more
than we do today on the sharpest possible awareness of a hostile environment. Apart from the complexity of the cerebral cortex
(which does not directly perceive pain) their nervous systems are almost identical to ours and their reactions to pain remarkably
similar, though lacking (so far as we know) the philosophical and moral overtones. The emotional element is all too evident,
mainly in the form of fear and anger.
That the higher animals
feel pain is obvious by studying the anatomy of their brains and by observing their reactions to certain stimuli. Animals
that are sentient (able to feel pain and have a desire to continue to live) should be protected from wasteful and insensitive
human actions that result in unnecessary suffering of animals. Certainly most vertebrates fit into this category.
3. We have been emphasizing intrinsic value over
instrumental value; however, this should not imply that the instrumental value of animals is not important. Animals are fascinating
creatures that can provide pleasure and enjoyment to humans beyond the realm of eating and making sport of them. Much can
be learned about God’s marvelous ways by observing animals within their natural setting. Even the instrumental value
of an animal should motivate responsible conservation efforts.
A sad example results from
the human exploration and conquest of certain islands and the subsequent annihilation of certain tortoise populations for
their meat and large shells. Many species of tortoises became extinct during this time. Though it could be argued that men
have the right to eat turtles and use their shells, wiping out entire populations was scandalous. Not only were they guilty
of the obvious—destroying and defacing species that God placed on earth for a reason, they were also selfishly consuming
this natural resource at the expense of all future generations of humans that will ever live. Several species of tortoises
are now gone forever as a direct result of human activity. The same can be said for many other species of animals.
4. Some people may be surprised to learn that animal cruelty is
illegal in all fifty states. Though the specifics vary from state to state, most states prohibit cruelty in the form of intentionally
torturing, killing, wounding, overworking, or mutilating animals. This includes animals in all classes of vertebrates except
fish. Exceptions are usually made when those animals are used for food, research, or when an animal is a threat to a human. Those who believe the Bible is God’s Word should be reminded that humans are required
to submit to the authority of human government, the only exception being when that government is in conflict with clear biblical
principles.
God Values
Animals
If the point could be made that God values animals, then one could
say that they have intrinsic value. The Scriptures indicate that God does. For instance, the Mosaic Law had regulations about
the treatment of animals (Deut. 22:4, 6, 7). The Ten Commandments provided for animals to have a day of rest (Ex. 20:10). Balaam was reprimanded for beating his donkey (Num. 22:32). Valuable lessons can be learned even from a simple ant (Prov. 6:6). Animals have
intelligence (Is. 1:3; Jer. 8:7). Jesus taught that God provides for the birds (Matt. 5:26)
and is concerned when a sparrow falls to the ground (10:29). Even the
land was to have a Sabbath rest every seven years. During those years no agriculture was to be done; whatever the land produced
could be eaten by people, livestock, or wild animals (Lev. 3-7).
The idea of man having dominion over nature was never intended to
be as an irresponsible tyrant, but as a responsible caretaker and steward according to Genesis 2:15. Human activities should
not endanger the survival of a species. God favors biodiversity. Otherwise, He would not have created the abundant diversity
with its inherent ability to produce offspring capable of furthering diversity by adaptation. This adaptation over time results
in increased varieties of animal species. The story of the flood also implies that God is concerned with preserving the biodiversity
of the animal kingdom. Following the flood, God actually made a covenant between himself and animals—that he would never
destroy living creatures off the face of the earth as the long as the earth exists (Gen. 8:21, 22; 9:9-16).
One
of the theological giants of the church, revered by Catholics and Protestants alike was St. Thomas Aquinas. He wrote that
“humans owe it to God and his goodness to be compassionate toward animals. We are called to love and preserve creatures
to his honor. And we honor God by exercising our rational dominion over animals and by preserving creatures whose very being
as well as usefulness to us to proclaim God's wisdom." He added, “If a man practices a pitiful affection for animals, he is all the more disposed
to take pity on his fellow men.”
It would do us all well
to remember that this is God’s planet and that humans are just stewards. We are pilgrims passing through; the earth
will remain long after we are gone. I’m sure our animal friends would be very appreciative!
